EU: EURODAC: finger-printing asylum-seekers (feature)
01 July 1996
The compulsory finger-printing of asylum-seekers as young as 14 years old is included in the draft Convention on the proposed EURODAC EU-wide asylum-seeker computer system. Article 4 says:
"The Member States shall record the fingerprints of every foreign national of at least 14 years of age who applies for asylum and shall promptly transmit to the Eurodac data file the images of the fingerprints together with [other] data.." (underline in original)
The fingerprint "image" is to comprise either "ten fingerprints or the prints of [two fingers], together with the codes for the ten fingers." The "images" will be accompanied by information on the "country, place and date of the application for asylum" (Article 5).
The fingerprints sent to the "Eurodac Central Unit" will be checked against the central database and a response sent back "forthwith" (also underlined) where: "the fingerprints of any persons.., in the technical opinion of the Central Unit, are identical to those under examination." The draft Convention says that "a European central data file of fingerprints of asylum seekers, called Eurodac, managed by an automatic fingerprint recognition system" shall be established.
The draft Convention on EURODAC gives effect to Article 15 of the Dublin Convention on asylum which introduced the "one-stop" rule whereby a person can only apply to one EU state. The purpose of the EURODAC computer system, like the Schengen Information System, is to track down applicants who have been refused asylum by another EU state or who have been removed/deported from a EU state.
The preamble to the draft Convention says that it does not create situations "in which applicants for asylum are made to wait too long before learning the outcome of their applications.." The rationale that the EURODAC fingerprinting system is, by some perverse logic, being introduced to help the asylum seeker is taken to its logical conclusion by UK Home Secretary Michael Howard in an Explanatory Memorandum. Mr Howard says:
"It is.. likely that Eurodac would substantially reduce the Immigration and Nationality Department's existing running costs relating to fingerprinting... Eurodac, in helping to give effect to the Dublin Convention, would serve to identify asylum applications made on-entry at UK ports to which the UK was not obliged to give substantive consideration and which offered the possibility of effecting a swift return to the Member State having responsibility. There would, in any such instance, be potential savings in benefit."
The asylum-seeker picked up by EURODAC could, of course, be returned forthwith not just to another EU country but to a so-called safe third country.
Article 7, "Right of information, correction and deletion", says a refused asylum applicant can try to find out the information held on them and to have it corrected or deleted if its is "inaccurate" in "the Member State in which such rights are invoked". As it appears EURODAC will have no legal identity the "the information stored in Eurodac shall be considered to be a national data file subject." The ability of the removed asylum-seeker to exercise such rights, together with meeting the costs involved, begs another question.
It is not at all clear what role the European Court of Justice is to have - exactly the same problems currently arise in this draft Convention as those which held up the Europol Convention for a year (see story in this issue).
In addition, like the recently signed Extradition Convention, this draft Convention also includes in Article 15.4 the concept of "rolling ratification" enabling EU states ratifying the Convention to put it into practice before all 15 national parliaments have completed the ratification process.
The consultant's report
The draft Convention was preceded by a lengthy process of selecting "consultants" to look into the feasibility of EURODAC.
Their 115-page final report shows no understanding o